Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Rwanda decisions
Source-linked decisions currently available to browse
The Court of Appeal held that Kigali Super Star Ltd’s second appeal was inadmissible because it had lost on the same grounds in both lower courts.
The appellate court found that the lower court had properly considered all mitigating circumstances and applied the law correctly in reducing the sentence from life imprisonment to 15 years, which is the statutory minimum. No further reduction was legally possible, and the appeal was dismissed as unfounded.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court found no valid settlement between the applicants and SONARWA because the agent lacked express authority and the compromise was not legally clear or signed by all parties.
The Court of Appeal held that, in light of recent case law applying the new, more lenient sentencing regime, and given the applicant's mitigating circumstances (guilty plea, first offence, remorse), the sentence should be harmonized with recent similar cases, resulting in a reduction to 13 years' imprisonment.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held there was no valid amicable settlement in a road-accident compensation dispute because the mandatary had only a general mandate.
The High Court correctly applied the law by reducing the sentence to the minimum allowed (ten years) for defilement with mitigating circumstances. No further reduction is legally permissible. The appeal had no merit and was dismissed, with the sentence corrected to ten years.
Source excerpt
__CONTENT_FILTERED__
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that Mbarushimana’s second appeal was inadmissible because he had lost on the same grounds in the lower courts.
The appellate court found that the conviction was based primarily on hearsay and a medical report that did not conclusively establish the defendant's guilt. The absence of direct evidence, lack of corroboration by independent witnesses, and failure to utilize available forensic (DNA) evidence created reasonable doubt. According to the principle that doubt benefits the accused, the court held that Ndagijimana Théogène could not be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Source excerpt
Explore more
